13 ms·

> Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos saw his warehouse workforce as necessary but replaceable, and feared that workers who remained at the company too lon

• madrox 4y ago
  This isn't a secret. Engineers are treated this way as well. At my time at Amazon, it was explained to me that this is why their comp structure is so wrapped up in stock and salaries are so low. Unless you keep getting promoted and get more stock, employees will naturally want to leave within four years.
  • capableweb 4y ago
    > employees will naturally want to leave within four years That also explains why the breadth of AWS services keep growing, but the depth of the existing ones remains the same. Seems they would, every 4 years, lose a bunch of people with deep knowledge in the existing ones, the ones who'd be able to add new and deep features.
    • anigbrowl 4y ago
      That seems like a good (albeit cynical) strategy to be honest. 80% of your users only care about 20% of the features, and by offering as many different services as possible, you minimize the number of purchasing decisions that customers need to make. Are all your offerings just OK or even mediocre compared to the competition? Yes. Do most customers care? No, as long as it's adequate and doesn't actively cause problems. I can think of many purchase/usage decisions of my own where I prioritize convenience over optimization, because the apparent return from optimization exceeds the apparent cost. I mean, just look at the Amazon retail operation - everyone agrees that the website is tired, ugly, and slow, but lots of people still do all their shopping from there because they're used to it and it's easier than maintaining accounts with 15 different retailers with 15 different websites. Amazon's bottom line seems to indicate that breadth-first algorithms work well on problems involving human populations.
      • shimon 4y ago
        This actually seems like a structural weakness in cloud, where so much of revenue comes from the relatively few customers who are very deep in their usage. On the other hand, you can usually rely on close relationships with those customers to identify their significant needs. However, it might be harden to implement them without the bench of deeply knowledgeable engineers.
        • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
          It seems unlikely to me that this analysis applies to amzn's retail division.
          • pacoWebConsult 4y ago
            If you spend any time reading their retail forums [1], you'll see almost everyone lambasting Amazon constantly. Either disgruntled sellers who broke the rules and got terminated, or normal, hardworking mom-and-pop stores that were all but forced to sell on Amazon and consistently lose money due to amazon's ever-changing policies, poor support, and catering to large retailers. Large retailers get a direct line and quality support, while most sellers on Amazon get treated like crap. [1]: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/ https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/
            • baxtr 4y ago
              Or maybe it’s just a tiny fraction of those millions of sellers on their platform?
            • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
              The GP claim was > where so much of revenue comes from the relatively few customers who are very deep in their usage. I'm disputing that for retail.
              • renonce 4y ago
                If you view the sellers rather than the buyers as customers, then you’ll see that it is the case.
    • mter 4y ago
      That's more promotion oriented architecture and design. New services/businesses are how you get promoted. Maintenance or incrementally improve existing functionality and you'll never get promoted. Amazon isn't really alone in that short sightedness though, it's just extra noticeable when combined with high churn
    • torginus 4y ago
      The number of services is just crazy - I've worked with AWS solutions architects in trying to find the perfect solution to our particular problems, and even they don't seem to know what half the stuff does.
      • jjoonathan 4y ago
        Let alone which ones are the good ones. That only comes from experience. AWS never cancels anything... but they never complete anything either and they abandon 80% of their products in minimum viable state, where "viable" is defined by the PM's bonus packet, not by anyone who has to use the damn thing.
        • p_l 4y ago
          And the level of actual integration of various services varies a lot (I mean, you expect things like IAM to be included if it's AWS service, right? Lol nope) plus then there's stuff that will be documented with something like one paragraph in docs and highly paid support engineers will never find anything internal about it, so you end up building a complete SSO solution for AWS from scratch...
          • ljm 4y ago
            AWS sometimes feels like Debian's APT but everything is rewritten in java.
            • winrid 4y ago
              AWS SimpleDB is in Erlang :p
          • philsnow 4y ago
            What services aren't currently integrated with IAM / didn't launch with IAM integration?
            • p_l 4y ago
    • mr_beans 4y ago
      Yes- this is real. There used to be “subclasses” to the Principal Engineer role and you could pick if you wanted to be a Depth Principal or a Breadth Principal, and that no longer exists now.
    • sbf501 4y ago
      Too many features: code bloat from noob engineers Too few features: too many new apps from noob engineers Can't win. I know you didn't say #1, but both of these contradictory points are floated quite often.
    • glenngillen 4y ago
      Ex-Amazonian here, so take what I say however you will. The back-ended equity structure (i.e., you only vest 5% of your equity grant in the first 12mo) isn’t great when you’re comparing it with a standard vesting schedule as an employee. As an employee if you’re given two identical grants for two identical companies with the same future prospects then you take the one that gives you that equity sooner. But the rhetoric is usually that equity is meant to be an employee retention tool. So from that perspective the AMZN vesting structure makes much more sense to me than what is common elsewhere. As for the service dynamic: the whole “2 pizza team” thing is both a blessing and a curse IMO. Once you launch a service at AWS’s scale you’ve immediately got tens of thousands of users. And AWS takes stability/availability/scalability incredibly seriously. I think it’s more likely that team is now in a permanent operations mode fixing weird edge cases you find at scale and keeping the lights on. If it was a staff retention issue like you suggest then you’d see the platform plagued with reliability issues and services being shut down. But that doesn’t happen. Even SimpleDB is still available for use (though well hidden).
  • uncomputation 4y ago
    Combine that with aggressive pruning/PIPing and you have people fighting to stay long enough to get their shares vested, once you stop getting promoted there is little stability because you will either get torn down for someone else’s ladder climb or have to keep getting promoted by any means necessary.
    • madrox 4y ago
      In my experience there, PIPing wasn't any more aggressive than anywhere else I've worked. The fighting was certainly real, though.
      • cpeterso 4y ago
        Leaked memos show Amazon’s senior leadership asks managers to “manage out” (PIP or let go) the bottom 6% of their workforce each year: https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/standing-up-for-us-plebs-amazon-leaders https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/standing-up-for-us-pleb...
        • madrox 4y ago
          I remember when that memo leaked. I was an EM at Amazon, and that wasn't my experience. I didn't feel any more pressure to PIP there than anywhere else. Maybe I wasn't there long enough to feel it.
  • dixie_land 4y ago
    ironically in this down turn Amazon offers are extremely appealing since your first two years are all cash. So you shore up on your cash while your future vesting have an upside if the recession is short lived.
    • madrox 4y ago
      Yes, their comp plans have changed in the last couple years because the stock isn't as exciting as it used to be. A couple years ago, it wasn't like this.
  • faangiq 4y ago
    Yep it’s a churn n burn shop.
  • simonw 4y ago
    Was that Amazon or AWS? I've heard that the cultures are different between the two. I would expect AWS to value holding onto their most experienced engineers.
    • pjbeam 4y ago
      There are differences of course, but culturally there is One Amazon. Both take a meat grinding approach, even for software engineers. Source: worked at AWS.
  • hintymad 4y ago
    As a result, AWS engineers are very much promotion oriented. This leads to two results: title inflation and disgruntled employees. L6 used to be a big deal but not any more. L7 is now the new L6. The challenge with this arrangement is that whoever got promoted early on but stayed in the same level get less in return. And apparently it's human's nature to compare. When engineers see that their peers get promoted to L7 (a role used to be considered almost impossible to reach) in three years for no particularly obvious reasons, they can barely hide their cold anger.
    • knolan 4y ago
      That almost sounds like a cult.
      • woah 4y ago
        You need to buy 10,000 hours of self improvement tapes to get to L7. Only the most enlightened have achieved it
      • burntoutfire 4y ago
        A cult takes money from you and doesn't pay you a million a year or whatever these people are making.
        • int_19h 4y ago
          How much are they making for Amazon, though?
        • r00fus 4y ago
          Their work output is worth more than the compensation or Bezos wouldn't be authorizing it.
        • Rexxar 4y ago
          They give money but take your life time.
    • deanCommie 4y ago
  • ActorNightly 4y ago
    In what world is a $150k out of college starting salary low?
    • kache_ 4y ago
      In a world where you can get 250
      • colinmhayes 4y ago
        No one is paying $250k salary out of college. Every one of those jobs has similar salary to amazon with the rest in stock. Maybe high frequency traders will give you that cash, but no one else.
        • hikingsimulator 4y ago
          It's not unheard of, but usually you need a PhD is a hot field with several conference papers. But it does not seem the norm yet. However, anecdotes make up hopes.
          • mrep 4y ago
            That's just a bachelors with 6 YOE (masters + phd). I have a bachelors with 6 years of actual experience and my target comp is 250k and actual is like 350k but in the meantime I've made a million dollars pre-tax in those 6 years. Totally different.
        • kache_ 4y ago
          are you sure about that?
    • peanuty1 4y ago
      I think their new grad salary is around 120k in HCOL areas like SF.
    • cebert 4y ago
      That sounds low to me
  • vishnugupta 4y ago
    > stock You left out a big part here; RSU vesting schedule is back loaded. It's something like 5-20-25-50
    • lbrito 4y ago
      It's 5-15-40-40
    • peanuty1 4y ago
      It's 5-15-40-40
      • georgeecollins 4y ago
        To me that is a real tell. New employees are a risk, but you can tell if they are going to work out after a year. If you are still discounting the RSUs at the second year, it is in hopes that some won't survive to the payout of the third.
        • yazaddaruvala 4y ago
          This is not me defending Amazon's comp structure (they need to improve it in many ways), just correcting the facts: At the time of calculating an offer, all 4 years are considered the same "Total Compensation Target" i.e. no built in reduction or raise. Amazon just pays cash equivalents for years 1 and 2 - through a signing bonus to make up for the lack of stocks, and through stocks in years 3 and 4. The stocks in for each year are calculated assuming an average of 15% growth. This can be problematic, or can be great depending on the year you join. Disclaimer: Worked at Amazon for 9 years.
    • WalterBright 4y ago
      How'd the combination to my safe get on the internet? Drat, now I have to change it.
    • stale2002 4y ago
      To say that it is backloaded is misleading. Yes, technically speaking, the stock only compensation is backloaded. But that is balanced out by a 2 year "signing bonus" that is front loaded an equivalent amount of money, such that you are almost getting a hybrid stock/signing bonus package, so that it is technically the same amount of compensation each year.
  • swat535 4y ago
    Yes and it has always been like this. Why would companies truly "value" Engineering? The majority of execs thinks we are just interchangeable drones and the only reason the salaries are so high in SV is because they literally can't get away with less. If they could, US salaries would be comparable to Canada or EU which are embarrassingly low for the amount of work they require. They will fire you in an instant to save cost, never increase your salary and come up with elaborate schemes to basically screw you. I have seen executives try it all: Replace senior engineering with students or interns (I'm not kidding), hire from third world companies and pay the peanuts, bring in cheap labor on visa restrictions and abuse them, low ball you in salary negotiations, attempt to pay with "stocks" (I'm talking about penny stock companies here..) To management, Engineering is nothing but an annoying expense that gets in their way of profit. All the free foods, foosball tables, "family" mantra and cool hats are designed to distract you from the fact that you are being paid in pittance. This is why there is so much discrimination against older engineers, because they are more likely to catch up to this and demand a fair wage and good working conditions. When you are young, naive and hungry, you don't think about it much because burning the midnight oil with pizza is exciting.
    • ljm 4y ago
      > If they could, US salaries would be comparable to Canada or EU which are embarrassingly low for the amount of work they require. I think that misses a cultural difference, which is that Canada and EU jobs don't require as much work because our work ethic is different. I can earn 100k in London and be very comfortable doing less than 40 hours a week, never working weekends, never doing crunch time, never being forced to work overtime, taking 6 weeks of vacation every year, sometimes more, and half of that is legally mandated. I don't have to flat-share on 100k. US salaries are extreme because the US work-ethic doesn't support that lifestyle. If you value your time more than your money then it's the US that provides an embarrassingly low return.
      • doubled112 4y ago
        https://www.ontario.ca/document/industries-and-jobs-exemptions-or-special-rules/government-employees-and-professionals#section-3 https://www.ontario.ca/document/industries-and-jobs-exemptio... IT professionals in Ontario, at least, are probably exempt from most of your list of things you'd think are required. Engineers and engineering students get an even shorter stick, in the form of more labour law exemptions. https://www.ontario.ca/document/industries-and-jobs-exemptions-or-special-rules/government-employees-and-professionals#section-2 https://www.ontario.ca/document/industries-and-jobs-exemptio...
  • raverbashing 4y ago
    There has been rumours of engineers "bouncing back" recently (they had a better term for it, but I forgot)
    • iglio 4y ago
      “Boomerang” most likely
      • raverbashing 4y ago
        Yes, that's the term, thanks
  • ornornor 4y ago
    > This isn't a secret. Engineers are treated this way as well. That still doesn’t make it acceptable. People are not Bezos’ minions slaving away so he can get even richer. Even Amazon employees deserve to be treated like humans, whether the abusive culture at amazon is a secret or not.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• SoftTalker 4y ago
  This is not unusual at all. My first job as a developer was with a big consulting firm. Undergraduate seniors were hired en masse every year as entry-level staff consultants. The expectation (not stated, but not hard to figure out) was that many would leave within a few years. Some would remain and get promoted, even fewer would stick around long enough to be considered for partnership. The work hours were long (50 hour weeks normal, more was not unusual) but the pay was good and it was good experience to cite when applying for other jobs. Amazon warehouse work is not a career. It's a job, that has minimal if any prerequisite skills other than being strong enough to move boxes around. It's not the sort of thing someone does for a lifetime.
  • jjoonathan 4y ago
    • notyourwork 4y ago
      We do it in the medical and legal field under the guise of “experience” and “career development”. Is it different because it’s blue collar hourly work and not used as a foundation for a lucrative career. I think it should stop in all places but we seem to disregard shitty work arrangements for the few prestigious and financially lucrative careers and cry wolf for those hourly souls. Why is that?
      • lupire 4y ago
        Are you saying it's not fair that people who get paid less get more sympathy?
        • notyourwork 4y ago
          I’m saying we focus on populations because of a common theme but some problems transcend those categorical boundaries.
          • 4y ago
• 99_00 4y ago
  >figure out that they are getting a bad deal. That's not what it's "really saying". That's you adding analysis. I think hourly workers are perfectly capable of figuring out if a job is a good or bad deal for them. They have bills and payments that must be made or they will suffer real consequences. They aren't making employment decisions based on free soda, foosball tables, and the political affiliation of the CEO.
  • jokethrowaway 4y ago
    If you can pass Amazon algorithms interview you can get hired in any other fang. Literally all the others are on average better options than Amazon for your mental health (even if not by as much as you think)
    • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      The labor analysis in TFA did not appear to consider technical staff.
  • rurp 4y ago
    I don't know, Amazon's absurdly high churn rate is pretty strong evidence that the jobs look a lot worse once you're in one of them. It's not about people being dumb and making bad decisions, it's just really hard to evaluate a work environment from the outside. Even for tech jobs, where it's common to interview with many future coworkers, assessing the work environment is tough. Warehouse type jobs are probably even harder to evaluate.
    • 99_00 4y ago
      >pretty strong evidence that the jobs look a lot worse once you're in one of them Pretty strong evidence that the job is worse than people would expect would be an anonymous survey of workers by a third party. Churn can result from any number of factors. It simply isn't enough to support your conclusion, and a lack of imagination in seeing alternative explanations isn't proof. Warehouse jobs have high churn. Yes, Amazon's churn is higher. A pandemic is just ending. Amazon hired a lot of temporary staff. Temporary staff are temporary. As things open people have more employment options. People will always go to the best option available. That doesn't mean the job they left is inhumane. It means they found something better. Finally, Amazon has a signing bonus. Some workers may be there just for the bonus. Once they get it they may want something that pays less but is easier.
• throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  People need to read some history. The early 20th century industrialists talked about all the same stuff. People are fickle and managing them at scale is hard. There's more to it than just "give them a good deal". There are plenty of people who are getting a "good deal" who become complacent or disgruntled.
  • sam0x17 4y ago
    Early 20th centruy industrialists also had to deal with the looming threat of anti-trust regulations. These days it's almost a joke. There is no trust-busting anymore. The monopolies control foreign and domestic policy through massive lobbying efforts.
    • Xeronate 4y ago
      Your argument has no relevance to the comment you are responding to as the point being made was it is human nature for (some) people to get complacent regardless of the circumstances.
      • walleeee 4y ago
        contextualizing a point is just as legitimate as responding to it directly and this particular comment is relevant perhaps some people will always grow complacent but you could just as easily make an essentialist argument about the corporation: maybe some employers will always abuse their employees, certainly some deliberately make it difficult to distinguish worker complacency from legitimate complaint, which bears directly on the original claim about human nature
      • WalterBright 4y ago
        It's also human nature to grumble about one's job. Heck, I do it too, even though I work for free.
    • burntoutfire 4y ago
      On the other hand, they could just beat up or kill their disgruntled employees... I think things have improved and not regressed since then.
• jstummbillig 4y ago
  When unpacking the quote I read: 1) Jeff Bezos saw his warehouse workforce as necessary but replaceable 2) He feared that workers who remained at the company too long would turn complacent or, worse, disgruntled The two statements seem relatively disconnected (which makes the "and" a little confusing). Anyway, while I understand a) (not saying I agree) and am a little confused by b), how both or either would logically lead to your conclusion is not obvious to me. Can you elaborate?
  • lisper 4y ago
    "Complacent and disgruntled" is the problem Bezos was trying to solve. "Replaceable" is the circumstance that he leveraged to produce his solution: hire a continual stream of fresh non-complacent non-disgruntled people and fire them before they have a change to become complacent and disgruntled. Creating a work environment where long-term workers become happy and productive rather than complacent and disgruntled, i.e. the kind of work environment that their current PR campaign portrays, apparently never entered into his thinking. Which makes it hard for me to sympathize that Amazon is now running out of fresh non-complacent non-disgruntled people to feed their process and has to resort to PR campaigns in order to attract fresh victims.
    • burntoutfire 4y ago
      > Creating a work environment where long-term workers become happy and productive Is there a large (or even mid-sized) tech company that managed to achieve it? I've never heard of one and I don't think it's possible. At scale these companies operate, senior level jobs are about navigating the organization and its bureucracy and there aren't many people who find that kind of work fun. Especially people who have an engineering mindset. The tech jobs in bigger companies are mostly meh at best an their biggest saving grace is the pay. Bezos realizes that and tries to work with this reality. Most big cos work because they've found way to extract enough value of out their people who'd rather not be there (but the pay and stability is too good), and tech is no exception.
      • lisper 4y ago
• eloff 4y ago
  You'd think they'd scrap the commercials and put the budget into improving working conditions if they really cared. I doubt the cost of the ads, plus the cost of the bad publicity, plus the cost of employee churn is really worth it. Why not just do the right thing? Even if it made them sightly less profitable, so what?
  • ironmagma 4y ago
    Amazon has never struck me as a company that would prioritize doing the right thing.
    • cyanydeez 4y ago
      Most companies irrationally value growth. Most of them are cancerous because of it.
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    Having warehouse workers is not Amazon's long term plan. They will replace as many workers with robots as quickly as they can. Their strategy revolves around burning out the entire workforce and then perfecting their robots before they need to pay truly absurd packages. Since the workers are a short term solution treating them poorly and using ads to reel more suckers in is a viable strategy. The question is will they run out of people before they can fully automate?
    • philsnow 4y ago
      This sounds so close to Uber's strategy from the mid-20teens of having huge incentives / gamification for drivers (up to and including offering to finance car loans to get more drivers) but it'll all be okay because in Just A Few More Years they'll have perfected the robotaxi and they can dump all the humans.
    • winrid 4y ago
      It's disgusting to treat people this way. You can replace people with robots and still treat them with respect. I don't see it being very long until people get out their pitchforks.
• Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  Yeah, my first thought when I read the headline was “Oh shit, have Amazon figured out they can’t treat people like shit and not run out of people willing to work for them?” Hopefully it will lead to better treatment of those they can employ.
• skybrian 4y ago
  Compare with an "up or out" system [1], which many companies have, as does the US Army. When I was at Google, it was generally understood that you were expected to be promoted to senior engineer eventually, but I never knew how much it was enforced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out
• type0 4y ago
  > many commercials lately about how great it is to work for Amazon. South Park had a realistic vision on how it is to work at Amazon Fulfillment Center https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc
  • lisper 4y ago
    Wow, that was really poignant.
    • philsnow 4y ago
      I dunno, it seemed fairly rosy. They could have twisted the knife quite a bit more: there were a couple 3-second interactions where people are buying things [0][1], if they had been denominated in "hours of service" rather than USD, with the Company knowing what their hours balance was, and having the balance tick down and go negative... that would have been dark. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc#t=1m26s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc#t=1m26s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc#t=2m5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc#t=2m5s
      • lisper 4y ago
        Yes, it was understated. Given SP's general trend of exaggerating things to extremes I thought that made it all the more emotionally impactful. It was like: if we exaggerated this reality, it would not be funny, it would be unwatchable.
• charles_f 4y ago
  Beyond the "up or out" mentality, the disgust you got from considering people as replaceable cogs in a machine and how it's done overall, and maybe not applicable to warehouse forces ; I think having some turnover in your organization is a good thing. You don't get the same diversity of idea and experience when people around you have all been there for 15 years than you get when they're coming and going. In my experience people who have been around for a long time tend to drink the coolade much more, and are more complacent with stuff that shouldn't be.
  • lisper 4y ago
    Yes, of course some turnover is necessary. You do sometimes have to get rid of the deadwood. But deciding that everyone is going to be treated as deadwood sooner or later (and apparently more likely sooner than later) as a matter of policy seems ill-advised to me.
• jvanderbot 4y ago
  This is a retrospective. Priorities have changed, according to TFA > But now, as the internal report Recode reviewed shows, some inside Amazon are realizing that strategy won’t work much longer, especially if leaders truly want to transform it into “Earth’s best employer,” as Bezos proclaimed in 2021.
• cwkoss 4y ago
  > Now I understand why I've been seeing so many commercials lately about how great it is to work for Amazon. Is there a law like betteridge's law of headlines for commercials? I.e. Anything a commercial tries to assert is probably untrue.
  • the_biot 4y ago
    You'd think it was obvious, but then it seems most people actually believe commercials, and buy more of the products they see advertised. Let's call it cwkoss' law of commericals.
• dleslie 4y ago
  > So it's not that they are running out of people to hire, it's that they are running out of people who have not yet figured out that working for Amazon is a bad deal. My wife is a Physiotherapist; when we lived closer to a fulfillment center it was deeply concerning just how many of her patients were seeing her for WCB (Worker's Compensation Board) claims resulting from injuries at the Amazon warehouse.
• whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, Amazon actually pays employees $5000 if they quit and agree to never return. Available to any employee who has worked there for long enough (I believe a year?)
  • wayeq 4y ago
    I can't wrap my brain around this.
  • hikingsimulator 4y ago
    But why...? One of the big rules of hiring is to get people that require the fewest hours of training. That's why most companies welcome "alumni" back.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  "The leaked internal findings also serve as a cautionary tale for other employers who seek to emulate the Amazon Way of management, which emphasizes worker productivity over just about everything else and churns through the equivalent of its entire front-line workforce year after year." "Amazon's attrition rates were 123 percent in 2019 before jumping to 159 percent in 2020, according to internal data in the report Recode obtained, while turnover rates across the US transportation and warehouse sectors were much lower: 46 percent and 59 percent respectively in 2019 and 2020, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates."
• KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Bezos was invited to dinner with the Obamas at the White House, along with Jon Stewart. He was flapping his mouth off about his vision for us all being happy little worker drones. Stewart told him that people want fulfilling, rewarding work they can be proud of, and that being errand boys for billionaires isn't fulfilling. Stewart capped it by saying that turning people into service drones for billionaires is how you end up with a revolution (ballsy words to say at a White House dinner to the richest guy on the planet.) And after a bit of silence, Obama said "I agree with Jon." https://youtu.be/Vewz1v4rQYg?t=116 https://youtu.be/Vewz1v4rQYg?t=116 You'd think Bezos would take the words of the president of the united states a little more to heart, but it seems not. And then years later, what happens? Staten Island union leaders thank Bezos for being too busy flying on his dick-rocket to stop them from unionizing his warehouse. Bezos basically considers every other human to be a happy little servant, just dying to work for the 0.001%. He's exactly like the stereotypical 1800's British lord who looks down upon his servants and says "oh they enjoy a good hard day's work for someone else." (print version: https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-jeff-bezos-economic-vision-revolution-obama-dinner-2022-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-jeff-bezos-econo...)
  • gremlinsinc 4y ago
    Jon Stewart is the best, honestly he should run for president. His crossfire episode (celebrity death match) with Tucker Carlson is epic.
• jhugo 4y ago
  > Amazon adopts the explicit policy of not wanting their workers to stay on long enough to figure out that they are getting a bad deal. Surely they stay on exactly long enough to figure that out. It is, after all, presumably why they leave.